Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Over the course of several blogs and several weeks, I’ve frequently referenced our human bias with regard to ourselves. It’s admittedly a very hard thing for us to remove ourselves from our own perspective, but I want to offer another exercise to do just that. I hope it will demonstrate just how strongly we hold to the belief that we are different in a good way from everything else on the planet. Imagine that you are a farmer, and you have a five acre plot of land. (Five acres isn’t a lot for farming.) Let’s also suppose that you grow a type of plant that requires a certain amount of space per individual. (I am not a farmer, and I don’t feel like looking things up for so trivial a point.) Let’s call it “Purple Corn.” For simplicity, let’s suppose that each purple corn plant requires exactly 1/100 of an acre to grow to its optimum height and produce healthy, nutritious purple ears of corn.

After leaving space for yourself to live, let’s say one acre, you have four acres left. If you’re going to grow only purple corn, you can place 400 plants on your property, right? Now, let’s suppose that you don’t have 400 plants. Instead, you only have 100, but that’s ok, because purple corn naturally increases its numbers each growing season by 20%. So, you plant what you have and reap your harvest.

After the first harvest, you have plenty of food, and life is good. After the second harvest, life is even better. You now have 120 plants, and an abundance of food. Over the next few years, your corn population looks like this:

1. 100

2. 120

3. 144

4. 172 (I’m rounding down, since half a plant is not a plant, and we must use whole numbers.)

5. 206

6. 247

7. 296

This is all well and good, except that you’re starting to see a potential problem. Purple corn needs fertilizer to grow, and you get your fertilizer from a few chickens and several cows that live on one acre of your property. The cows are already having a hard time. With slightly over one acre, they really don’t have enough space to live like cows normally live. The chickens look like they’re soon going to be feeling cooped up (Yeah… I know… sue me.) as well.

But it’s worse. You have a well, and it appears that it is running dry. There is only so much water to be had, and the water requirements of growing so much corn are getting taxing. In fact, a little math leads you to a relatively simple prediction. If your corn takes over much more of your farm (you’re not sure exactly how much… it’s an inexact formula, after all) you won’t have enough water to keep yourself, the cows, the chickens, and the corn from dying.

What’s the right thing to do? To answer this, let’s remind ourselves of what the word “should” actually means. To quote myself:

Quote:

Any statement about what we should do is really an IF-THEN statement, or a contingency. In other words, a certain outcome is contingent upon us doing a certain thing. “You should temper the milk before adding it to your hot pan, IF you don’t want the sauce to curdle.” There are different ways of expressing contingency. The word must is stronger than should. “You must keep your speed under sixty-five miles per hour if you are to obey the law.” There is no wiggle room in this statement. If we exceed sixty-five, we will be breaking the law, regardless of whether or not we are caught. On the other hand, we shoulddrive under seventy if we don’t want to run an excessive risk of being pulled over in a sixty-five zone. We know that the chances of being pulled over are very slim if we maintain a speed of five miles per hour over, but it’s not certain.

We need to make an IF-THEN statement. This one looks like it will be accurate and relevant: IF we are to maintain our ability to grow corn and raise chickens and cows with enough resources left over for ourselves, THEN we must control the growth of our corn. There are several good reasons for this. The corn isn’t going to control itself. It reproduces 20% each year, and we can easily predict when it’s going to start causing real problems. Also, we know the result of overcrowded corn — there isn’t enough water to go around, and either some of the corn will just have to dry up and die, or all of the corn will have to suffer in quality. We also know that eventually, we’re going to have to choose between the corn and our livestock. One or the other will have to go if the population is left unchecked.

Ok. My gentle readers aren’t dumb. Let’s get to the real issue. If humans are risking the destruction of their environment by their population growth, and they will bring suffering on themselves, and we want to avoid this consequence, the thing we should do is control the population, right?

Wrong. Condoms are killing Africans by the million. Abortion is the same as murdering a full grown adult. Zygotes are a gift from God, and we need eighteen kids at a time to build conquering armies. A woman isn’t complete as a person unless she is a mother. Childless people are… strange… or worse…

Does anyone besides me notice a disconnect from logic? We have a legitimate problem, and instead of doing what we should do to correct it, we are literally trying to legislate against the most humane ways of solving the problem. Birth control is obviously the best method. When that fails, or when people fail to use it, abortion is the next best option. It’s cheap, it’s safe when performed properly, and it is unquestionably less emotionally painful than killing a full grown adult. Sterilization is a great option, and yet doctors routinely discourage patients from having the procedure done.

I have heard no compelling argument for why humans should be exempt from the logic of population control. I’d like to know if you, gentle readers, know something I don’t know. Is there a good argument?

If we are not exempt from the logic of population control, we are limited by reality. Either we must prevent pregnancies, terminate pregnancies, or terminate the lives of individuals who have been born. If you’re against abortion, you must choose one of the other two options. If you’re against condoms and abortions, you’re bat shit crazy and I don’t want to associate with you.

We have been dealt a hand, and we must play it. People will not be abstinent. Only fools and the religious believe this is possible. (Or, am I being redundant?) We will reach a peak population. Ask any ecologist. (Then, ask them why K-selected populations don’t grow above that peak. The answer’s not pretty.) What are we going to do? There are only so many choices, and the religious seem to have left us only one, since we can’t prevent pregnancy or abort fetuses.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

You see, this is why AIDS is the best thing to happen to Africa since, well, not being an expert in African affairs, I don't know how to complete that statement but the first half makes my point well enough anyway.

See, there is this lethal disease and despite all the billions of dollars that have gone into research, the best that we can tell the people of Africa remains to keep it in your grass skirt. That and don't get medical treatment from some guy who has been using the same hypodermic for a couple of years. Also, fucking a virgin does not cure AIDS despite what the shamen says.

Yes capt. Pineapple, standing on the other side of the fence will help to reduce the birth rate. If that means having lots of unprotected sex with as many guys as one can find, then going gay helps in more ways than one.

None of which addresses Hamby's point that the pope is a lunatic. However, popes have been bat shit crazy for at least 1,600 years. Since the catholic church is all about embracing traditional values, I don't see any reason to ask them to stop just for this one cause.

Actually, Pineapple, I'll take the snark away for a second. I think maybe I can make this point clearly since you've just read this, and we've got our other abortion convo on the brain.

There are three choices if we want to reduce the population. (Be sure to let me know if you can think of any others.)

1) Prevent pregnancies from occurring.

2) Terminate pregnancies that have occurred.

3) Kill people who have already been born.

Obviously, if we drop anthrax in the middle of every major population center, we'll get a very fast reduction in population, but I think everyone would agree that while effective, this method is not desirable.

Granting that we shall not kill human beings, we are left with preventing and ending pregnancies. Presumably, you are in favor of preventing pregnancy with birth control, so long as people don't get "overly sexual." By the way, I've asked you several times, and you haven't answerd -- how many times a week can I have sex and still be considered responsible if I don't want to make a girl pregnant? I really don't want to be too overly sexual...

Anyway, suppose for a second that the pope reverses his stance and says that everyone in the world ought to use a condom every time. Suppose that condom use becomes the greatest thing since raping virgins to cure AIDS. What if that didn't reduce our population enough to be sustainable? Would you rather sterilize people so that they don't have the chance of making a zygote, or would it be ok to scrape a few zygotes here and there in the interest of saving the whole human race?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Anyway, suppose for a second that the pope reverses his stance and says that everyone in the world ought to use a condom every time. Suppose that condom use becomes the greatest thing since raping virgins to cure AIDS. What if that didn't reduce our population enough to be sustainable? Would you rather sterilize people so that they don't have the chance of making a zygote, or would it be ok to scrape a few zygotes here and there in the interest of saving the whole human race?

How about we wait and see if the birth control is enough?

But as I said repeatitly, abortion should be a last resort. Or here's a double solution, if abortion is required, then the couple must adopt a foster child. That way we reduce the birth rate and the number of children waiting in foster care, and then people will be more careful.

Why does anyone ever bother to argue about what it would be like in an ideal society? Why not argue about the one we have?

Well Hamby, I try. There are millions of couples in this world who can't have kids by fucking normally. There are also no small number of confused teenagers who don't use rubbers when they should.

I think that the two groups could be matched and good stuff can happen. Social democrats seem to think that if we just spend countless hundreds of millions of dollars, we can make a world where fucking does not need to happen at all and yet everyone who fucks can do so without having a baby.

Obviously, if we drop anthrax in the middle of every major population center, we'll get a very fast reduction in population, but I think everyone would agree that while effective, this method is not desirable.

Well, for now I imagine almost everyone would agree that it isn't desirable.

In perhaps one to two decades when empty fridges are a common household item and we keep hearing about how those other people way across the planet are just hoarding all that food to themselves and the Conservatives just swear it'll be a totally painless and humane death for all the people in the city and it'll all be over so fast and afterward there'll be so much food for everyone...

I wonder if there might be a change of heart then. :\

Quote:

"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

By the way, I've asked you several times, and you haven't answerd -- how many times a week can I have sex and still be considered responsible if I don't want to make a girl pregnant? I really don't want to be too overly sexual...

Depends. If you know the girl, and when she ovulates than you know when she's most fertile.

If you just pick one up that you don't know, for a night fuck then you're pretty much rolling the dice.

Why does anyone ever bother to argue about what it would be like in an ideal society? Why not argue about the one we have?

Well Hamby, I try. There are millions of couples in this world who can't have kids by fucking normally. There are also no small number of confused teenagers who don't use rubbers when they should.

I think that the two groups could be matched and good stuff can happen. Social democrats seem to think that if we just spend countless hundreds of millions of dollars, we can make a world where fucking does not need to happen at all and yet everyone who fucks can do so without having a baby.

Please tell me what I am missing here...

I can't derail Hamby's thread and point out that a Social Democracy would be capable of providing the very matching you wish to see can I?

Depends. If you know the girl, and when she ovulates than you know when she's most fertile.

If you just pick one up that you don't know, for a night fuck then you're pretty much rolling the dice.

Alison, let's try a mundane analogy that isn't emotionally charged for a moment: crossing the street.

Now, there are safer methods of crossing the street and safer areas to cross the street. For instance, crossing a road only after looking both ways for traffic and using a marked crossing is much safer than simply running across the road without looking or finding a crosswalk; at the same time, it is much safer to do either thing our in the rural boonies than it is in the middle of the city.

Since crossing the street in the city is always a much more hazardous venture than crossing the street in the country, am I just 'rolling the dice' and taking my life into my own hands whenever I cross the street in the city? Or, generally speaking, is personally typically safe as long as they look both way and use a crosswalk?

You're right - if I know the girl in question is on her period and clean of disease, I'm safe as can be. We can have sex without any contraceptives or other safeguards and all and I'm still pretty safe regardless. If I take home a chick I met in a bar, it's still pretty safe so long as we're both using protection. Pretending that I'm just 'rolling the dice' as though I just jumped out in front of a bus is rather silly.

Quote:

"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

Well, technically, she's right. If you take home a girl you don't know and have safe sex with proper condom use, you are rolling a die with a few hundred sides, and there is a possibility that the roll will be a 1.

You're also rolling the dice everytime you have sex with someone you know, since you don't know for certain that she hasn't cheated on you, or that she hasn't had an STD that was in remission, or is only now manifesting symptoms.

Oh, and I should add that there are cases of women getting pregnant from sex during their period, although it's very rare.

The thing is, "rolling the dice" is an emotionally charged and very scary sounding phrase. It's something opponents of various sexual activities often say, as if the fact that an activity has a risk means that it's necessarily high risk. I linked the study that showed that out of 123 couples where one partner had HIV and the other one didn't, when they used condoms consistently, the transmission rate was 0% -- and that's not just 0 out of 123. That's 0 out of 123 x multiple sexual encounters, as these were couples being studied over a period of several months. If we assume twice a week for four months (I can't remember if it was 4 or 6, so let's go with 4 to be safe) that's 2x4x4=16x123= 1,968. So, the transmission probability was 0/1,968.

Now, just for shits and giggles, let's suppose that one partner had become infected. That would still be a .0005% chance of transmission per encounter.

Yeah. Rolling the dice. Rolling it in a dangerous game? No. At twice a week, you could have protected sex for nearly nineteen years before the odds would be stacked against you.

I did some math just now, and guestimated my own life. In all my instances of protected sex with proper condom use, I estimate that there has been a 0.0002% chance per encounter that a pregnancy will result. I had to fudge the numbers a little bit. My ex-wife did get pregnant and we had an abortion, but she was on the pill, and forgot not to take antibiotics on the pill. I wasn't wearing a condom. Incidentally, in speaking with her a few months ago, we agreed that the abortion was the best thing either of us could have possibly done. We honestly couldn't imagine how horrible it would have been for both of us -- on a LOT of levels -- if she had given birth. We're both extremely glad that we made the decision that we did, and we feel no regrets whatsoever. Incidentally, my incidence of impregnation with a condom is 0% over my life.

Also, I'm perfectly happy to admit that in my younger and more stupid days, I did not always use condoms. Again, it's an estimate, since I didn't keep a journal, but I know how long I dated various women and approximately how often we had sex, so I'm pretty sure I'm close. I'd guess the margin of error to be +/- 5% on the total number of sexual encounters. Anyway, in unprotected sex, I have a 0% rate of impregnation. Had I hypothetically caused one impregnation from unprotected sex, my percentage would still be under 5% impregnation rate.

My bill of health is clean, so I have a 0% rate of transmission for all diseases they test for. I can't very well speculate on anything beyond that. I suppose it's possible I'm the first carrier of a new STD, but I doubt it.

So yeah... It's rolling the dice, but the game is heavily stacked to the player, not the house.

[EDIT: Ok. I decided to count all of my sexual partners, since Pineapple's so concerned with casual sex. I've had three extended relationships -- I was married, then had a long relationship, and am with my third partner who I consider a life-mate. Everything else would have to go under the heading of casual sex. (I'm counting dating that didn't lead to relationships, friends with benefits, one night stands, and one marvelous weekend of being flooded in with a new acquaintance during a hurricane with no power and nothing to do.... wow... what a weekend!) Anyway, since I have a clean bill of health, I'm going to have to fudge these numbers to get anything besides 0%, but supposing I had tested positive for one disease, and had isolated the person who gave it to me, I would have less than a 3% chance per partner of contracting a disease.]

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

If you just pick one up that you don't know, for a night fuck then you're pretty much rolling the dice.

You must play the local lottery, then.

I say that because if it's a "roll of the dice" with your logic there, the same applies to a lottery, only with a monetary prize as the outcome to that roll of the dice.

How many times have you won? Is it cool being that wealthy?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different."
- Douglas Murray

Anyway, I think we should invest more in re-newable sources such as wind and solar, to at least give us some breathing room to look for how to better distribute resources so we can at least think of ways to reduce the population without wars breaking out for the oil or if the oil runs out.

Given the stats birth control methods alone would most likely be sufficent to lower the population, so we need to increase awareness and education.

If education on "safe sex" was "ideal" (and let's also assume birth control was cheap and easily accessible), the need for abortion would be theoretically reduced to almost nothing.

We would only be discussing abortion in cases where the mother's life was in danger or rare times when contraception failed and the mother did not desire to carry the pregnancy to term.

I see where she's going, but I still reject the argument for several reasons.

Arguing about ideal worlds is pointless. Humans are humans, and we have to solve problems in the existing world. In this world, there are a LOT of women who get pregnant and don't want to have a baby. The world is overpopulated, and there's no reason to bring an unwanted baby into the world, even if we could hunt around and create a nice beaurocracy to find somebody somewhere who would be willing to adopt the thing.

In this world, education takes time, and the problem of unwanted pregnancy will continue to happen until and unless an "ideal world" is reached. I'm right with Pineapple that good birth control is cheaper, easier, and less emotionally conflicted than abortion. Given the best of all situations, it would be great if everybody did the smartest thing possible, and used contraception properly every time they had sex, and avoided sex during their most fertile days (when, incidentally, women are most horny. It's science. Look it up.) and only had to consider abortion under very rare circumstances.

If you believe that's ever going to happen, I've got a few bridges to sell you. Even in the most sexually open and progressive countries in the world, there are still unwanted pregnancies from unsafe sex and improper use of contraception.

The reality is that we have to accept humans for what they are -- they're hornier than they are smart, on balance, and no amount of education is ever going to completely eliminate the demand for abortion. I'm a big believer in as much sex education as possible for everybody. I think sex education ought to be mandatory in all schools, and the curriculum ought to be science based, detailing what people do, not what some pencil pusher with an insecurity complex and a picture of Jesus on his desk thinks they ought to do in an ideal world. For several reasons, sexuality is one of the last remaining areas of scientific inquiry where we simply refuse to deal with the way things are, instead preferring to appeal to wishful thinking, religion, and emotion to try to will another reality into existence. Science should be science.

The point is that it's absurd to say because people need abortions more than they ought to need them, we should make abortions illegal or discourage them. Instead, we should accept that the "not quite as good" solution is better than "no solution at all" and facilitate abortions while doing our best to educate people having them.

I actually agree with Pineapple that women getting an abortion ought to be required to attend a meeting, but not the kind she wants. Instead, I think the abortion ought to be granted on demand, but that the woman be required to complete and pass a mandatory course on effective birth control methods and their proper use. It couldn't hurt if the course also contained accurate information about world population, environmental resources, and the problems of overpopulation. That way, you stand a chance of preventing her from needing an abortion in the future, as opposed to just telling her how naughty she was for getting pregnant and encouraging her to bring an unwanted baby into the world.

In short, yeah. I get it. If everybody was perfect, we wouldn't need abortion. Great argument. Also, if everybody was perfect, there would be peace and love everywhere, and nobody would ever want for anything, and all the children of the world would join hands and sing in a spirit of joy and harmony, and everyday would be Christmas.

In the real world, abortions are necessary.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

By the way, I should add that even if the world were not overpopulated, I would still support a woman's right to choose to abort a baby if she wanted to. I'm not big into restricting personal freedoms for no good reason, and I've yet to see a good reason for restricting choice. So we have a compelling reason to facilitate abortion, and no good reason to discourage it.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

By the way, I should add that even if the world were not overpopulated, I would still support a woman's right to choose to abort a baby if she wanted to. I'm not big into restricting personal freedoms for no good reason, and I've yet to see a good reason for restricting choice. So we have a compelling reason to facilitate abortion, and no good reason to discourage it.

This brings to my mind a question I've never gotten around to asking you.

Presuppositions:

1. Technology exists to substitute all of the attributes of a mothers womb, ALL of them. Even ones we're not currently certain of, or have no knowledge of at all.

2. Technology exists to transplate a organism from a mother to another individual or a technological substitute without causing any discomfort or risk of harm to the mother, the organism, or the recipient.

3. Overpopulation is not a concern, or likely to become one for the foreseeable future.

Question:

Would you still support abortion in this scenario?

Just out of curiosity. I know ahead of time you aren't going to like my presuppositions, so don't bother commenting on them. Unless you really can't help yourself.

So the fetus doesn't get the freedom to develop, yet the mother somehow deserves the freedom to get rid of it?

Yes. Most definitely. Unreservedly. Absolutely.

Quote:

Let me guess, the woman has the right to make decisions with her own body right? Too bad the fetus isn't her. Unless you can scientifically show that the fetus has the same DNA.

Yes, the woman has the right to make decisions with regard to her own body so long as they don't infringe on the rights of another person or otherwise break legitimate laws. Fetuses do not have rights, and so their rights cannot be infringed upon.

I have said before that I would be ok with a ban on third trimester abortions to placate the people who cry because the fetus looks a lot like a human, and might feel some pain from the procedure. You know what, though? A lot of things cause pain in the universe. Killing chickens and cows and catching fish in gill nets causes pain, and we're ok with it because it's for the greater good of our species. Abortion is also for the greater good of our species. And before you get on your high horse about how we might as well kill a million people because that's for the greater good of the species -- we have done that before. How many Axis soldiers and civilians died in World War II? The world is a cruel place sometimes, and it really sucks for you that you're emotionally moved by the thought of a fetus not getting to be a human being because some woman has the gall to want to determine her own course in life.

Quote:

That said I don't like the semantics of "pro-life" or "pro-choice" both merely seek to demonize the other side.

Is this relevant?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

By the way, I ought to add that there's some gray area in terms of laws relating to fetuses that are intended for birth. If a woman smokes or drinks constantly during the pregnancy of a fetus she intends to carry to term, it is more likely that the baby will suffer from defects. I would argue that the mother's actions during pregnancy have infringed upon the rights of the baby (once it's born, it has rights), and she could conceivably be held legally responsible. It's a fine line, but the only legal definition that makes sense is that the woman's actions can only be considered for potential crimes after the baby has been born. If her actions cause the baby to abort, that would leave the absurd position of prosecuting a woman for finding an alternate way to get an abortion, which is legal.

This is not an odd precedent or a stretch. At the restaurant I run, we often have spills which don't get immediately cleaned up. Water on the floor is a potential liability issue. If someone slips, falls, and hurts themselves, we could be sued (rightly so) for negligence if we didn't have an appropriate warning sign in place around the spill. However, if a lawyer comes in and finds a wet spot on the floor, he can't sue us because no damage has been done to a person.

Likewise, smoking and drinking are potentially damaging to a person who might exist in the future. If it turns out that this is the case, a crime has been committed. If not, then no crime.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Either you don't know your farming or you are being overly positive. That is not even he half of it, not even a quater of it. But your point remains it is unbelivably stupid. I can only assume these people haven't stoped to think or even looked at what they are doing might cause.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.

There's no clear line when they become human, so why is there a clear line as to when they get rights?

I've already explained why the question of when a fetus becomes human is a non-question. Birth is the only line that makes any political or practical sense in the real world, assuming that egalitarianism is your goal.

Giving "personhood" rights to a fetus is a pandora's box. I don't think you've stopped to consider just how many incredibly ridiculous consequences would result. Are you, for instance, ready for every fetus to have a guardian ad litum, or to grant that status automatically to a mother, but then attempt to repeal it in court while she's pregnant should she prove unworthy of the position? You do know that any person who is incapable of agency on their own behalf is required to have such a guardian to make legal decisions for them, right?

In any case, these arguments are beside the point as well as after the point. That is, the arguments against a right to abortion fail on their own, so there's no particular need to form an argument for why it should be a right. Rights are assumed until they are proven to be a bad idea. The status quo is keeping abortion legal.

Quote:

If I flunk all my exams, and don't get my degree, then that affects my life, but it was my actions that led to it. I have the right to an education, but I also have a responsibility to hold up to it.

Alison, I'm sorry but I'm not going to keep explaining to you why these analogies are not valid. I've done so with several others. I'm sorry if you can't understand the logic.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Giving "personhood" rights to a fetus is a pandora's box. I don't think you've stopped to consider just how many incredibly ridiculous consequences would result. Are you, for instance, ready for every fetus to have a guardian ad litum, or to grant that status automatically to a mother, but then attempt to repeal it in court while she's pregnant should she prove unworthy of the position? You do know that any person who is incapable of agency on their own behalf is required to have such a guardian to make legal decisions for them, right?

Who said it has to be person hood? If someone kills a cat, they could be charged with animal cruelity.

Quote:

Alison, I'm sorry but I'm not going to keep explaining to you why these analogies are not valid. I've done so with several others. I'm sorry if you can't understand the logic.

Wait let me guess, "The woman is taking responsability by getting the abortion"?

Who said it has to be person hood? If someone kills a cat, they could be charged with animal cruelity.

Not in my part of the universe. Only if they kill a cat in a particularly cruel way. In fact, in most places I'm familiar with, if it's legal to use whatever weapon you employ, you're free to kill animals on your own property so long as they're not endangered or otherwise protected.

Quote:

Wait let me guess, "The woman is taking responsability by getting the abortion"?

Read it again. Your analogy is not valid, so there's no reason to address it. I'm not going to explain again why it's not valid because I've done it before with several of your analogies. You just aren't getting it. Use your brain, not your emotions, Alison.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

That's all very interesting. Would you document it for me? I'm seriously not going to re-read the entire thread to figure out what in the world you're talking about, but I'll be happy to address any points I've genuinely not addressed. I'm getting a little confused because we're talking about the same subject in at least three threads, and on my blog.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Let me guess, the woman has the right to make decisions with her own body right? Too bad the fetus isn't her. Unless you can scientifically show that the fetus has the same DNA.

I guess this means she also doesn't have the right to remove (thus killing) the tapeworm slowly leeching nutrients from her, after all it 'isn't her', it is a completely seperate living organism.

The two are functionally more similar than you would care to admit.

Here's my point, so long as the Fetus is dependent on the woman's body for survival, it is subject to her desires. Once we can remove the fetus from the woman's body and it is capable of suriving on its own, it is entitled to rights.(*1)

If I flunk all my exams, and don't get my degree, then that affects my life, but it was my actions that led to it. I have the right to an education, but I also have a responsibility to hold up to it.

And guess what happens when you piss off the university too much; they Kick You Out. According to your idea of the 'rights' of living things based only on their potential, the Universities should not be allowed to do this. After all, the Universities are destroying your 'potential life'. Furthermore, they obviously knew the risks when they accepted you, they should just have been more discerning of who they accepted.

Before you bring it up, I know the Blastomere is a non-sentient organism incapable of deciding on courses of action and only doing the only thing it can to survive. Guess what, the same goes for the Tapeworm, and really, its obviously the person's fault they have a tapeworm, they must have engaged in some activity that carried the risk of contraction of a tapeworm.

Before you also bring this up, the university is actually at least partially at fault for you being there. After all, they provide the school and try to encourage people to come to them, its their own fault when some of those people inevitably scrape the bottom of the barrel and fail miserably, damage something, or break some rules, or do anything wrong.

Ultimately however, going over this is losing my interest, so until someone can come up with a new argument I'm going to embrace that most noble of American past times and pass the buck to The 1585 once again.

1: Before you even ask it, if she is accepting to carry the pregnancy then I consider that to endow provisional rights on the embryo, such as the right to be protected from the mother being an alcoholic or smoking, but as Hamby stated the mother can only effectively be charged after birth. The Rights given to the embryo are only temporary and subject to instant revocation by the woman for any reason she so chooses provided she does the humane thing and terminates the pregnancy.

1) Humans take non-human life all the time, and nobody gripes about it. Zygotes are not humans. What’s the problem?

2) You keep going on about good reasons. Supposing that we say we shouldn’t end life without a reason (it’s not a human life, remember), why isn’t the mother’s choice a good enough reason?

five posts above it

Alison wrote:

Zygote develops into a human -> The zygote is a potiental human

the zygote is a developing human -> part of the human life process/\it is immoral to interfere with a human’s life process

Your response to it [immediatly below it]

Hamby wrote:

The problem is that you are just saying it’s immoral. You’re not justifying it.

My response

Alison wrote:

I wrote “Taking a life is wrong because I wouldn’t want others to take it from me without good reason. It’s my life and nobody has the right to interfere with it unless I am interfering with somebody else’s. ”

Is that a good guage as to if something is immoral oh wise one?

Like Watcher said the Golden rule.

Then your response is the one I quoted at the begining.

You see?

The first of my posts I quoted addresses the problems [Zygotes are part of the human life process, ergo that's the answer to 1) and 2)]

First you ask what the problem with aborting a zygote is. Then you go on to ask why it's immoral to interfere with the human life process, I address that, and then you go back to asking what is the problem with aborting a zygote!

Pineapple, a response isn't necessarily an answer, kiddo. My answer still stands. Your response doesn't address the foundation of your morality, nor the justification for that foundation, and without a framework, you can't even begin to address something as moral or immoral.

Your argument rests on an unsupported assertion: A fetus deserves rights because it might one day become human. This is admittedly a political question, as I've mentioned before, but you have framed it as a moral question, so you're failing on two levels. First, you're trying to address a political question through morals, and second, you're trying to address a moral question through politics. From most progressive people's perspective, legislation and morality don't mix, so you've got a long row to hoe if you're going to claim they should. On the other hand, if you're going to argue it from a strictly moral standpoint, you are still going out on a limb by not providing a foundation for your personal morality.

So pick your poison. Is it morals? Is it politics? Once you've chosen, defend your position within that framework.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

the zygote is a developing human -> part of the human life process/\it is immoral to interfere with a human’s life process

Here we go with the 'potential human' crap again.

Alison, you keep shifting your argument. You'll include and exclude this line of reasoning as it suits you.

Every sperm and evry egg cell is a 'potential human'. Having sex is part of the human life process. You're not opposed to the loss of sperm or the alteration of sex via contraceptives to interfere with the reproductive process; we've been over this already, and you've conceded that this is a very weak argument at best and that you would stop wasting our time with it.

You have a lot of gall to continuously change your position, never offering a pair of firm premises, and then accuse Hamby of circular reasoning.

Quote:

"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

Alison, you keep shifting your argument. You'll include and exclude this line of reasoning as it suits you.

Every sperm and evry egg cell is a 'potential human'. Having sex is part of the human life process. You're not opposed to the loss of sperm or the alteration of sex via contraceptives to interfere with the reproductive process; we've been over this already, and you've conceded that this is a very weak argument at best and that you would stop wasting our time with it.

You have a lot of gall to continuously change your position, never offering a pair of firm premises, and then accuse Hamby of circular reasoning.

Where have I conceded that it's a weak argument?

I wrote:

I don’t see how the rights of something should only start when it’s out of the uterus. Like I said before it’s a developing human.

Now you asked where should we draw a line, men will seek to impregnate women, women will seek men to impregnate them etc…

The line is that the zygote requires no more external stimuli. It develops by itself, with the mother providing the space and nutrients.

Now you may say that the mother is external stimuli by providing nutrients, but it’s a natural process as in she doesn’t need to conciously do it.

The man seeking to impregnate a female does have the potental to impregnate a female, but requires an external source: a female.

So no a male left on his own will not produce a human life. He requires another ingredient.

Same with sperms and eggs. The sperm needs an egg to produce a zygote.

A sperm alone or an egg alone are still missing the ingredient to produce human life.

That is why I draw the line on the zygote.

Second there is a good reason to provide counsling to mothers seeking an abortion.

The mother may have issues, and the counsling can provide her with useful alternatives, and prevent it from happening again.

(the zygote is a developing human -> part of the human life process)/\others do not have the right to interfere with others life process without good reason

Fine. Then birth control is also immoral.

Sexual intercourse is part of the human life process, and people do not have the right to interfere with it according to you.

Quote:

"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

I fail to see how this semantics change helps, given that sexual intercourse is also part of the human developmental process.

Alison, why don't you just be honest - unlike those other anti-abortion folk - and jut say what is obvious:

You don't want people to have casual sex.

Quote:

"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

Then you can have a runaway train suggesting that it is immoral to not have sex when about to get your period. Not to mention male masturbation.

Much like the other side has a runaway that in time could shift from zygote to fetus to child. A child has no responsibilities. A child is not productive. A child is only a potential adult, not an adult. Therefore kill the bad kids.

There's nothing logical to indicate this must happen, but there is nothing to stop it from happening either. Time has fucked up ideas worse than this, especially with frequent applications of illogic, emotion, and religion.

Frankly I think both sides are lacking here. Either a sperm and egg combined successfully is a human or it is not. Clearly most of the people here say it is not. My morality puts me on the side of it being human, hence my problems with the issue of abortion. The zygote is incapable of becoming anything other than human without direct and significant genetic manipulation. The argument that provision of resources is required to develop works for any life form of any age. No resources means no life. And life constantly develops.

Science convinces me that a human zygote is human. It convinces others that a human zygote is not human. Hence, I consider this a matter of opinion, and inarguable as a result. Much like some say a virus is alive, and others say it isn't. I fall on the side of a virus being alive, but that does not invalidate the position of those who say it isn't.

See, it's like this. Most scientists will not answer this question, mainly because it takes too long to explain why it's not even a valid question. Still, when pressed, people in the science of embryology will happily concede that a zygote is not a human being.

This rankles lots of people, including many atheists. It doesn't sit well with them emotionally. So, they object. Those of us who have read the work of said scientists point out that they are disagreeing with science. They continue to disagree, because it doesn't sit well emotionally.

They will argue some philosophical point or another. Those of us familiar with the work of the real scientists will yawn, get bored with the conversation, and tell them again that what they're saying is all very interesting, but they haven't got the scientific chops to address the question.

In other words, Vastet and Pineapple, your opinions as a sci fi geek and a crotchety student with some respectable physics chops, respectively, are not relevent to the conversation since neither of you has anything to back them up with save your gut feeling on the matter.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin